As part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, we have responsibilities. It’s up to the president and Congress to make intelligent choices and make sure the American people know the outcome of getting involved.

We should see our armed forces as peacekeepers. If we take the lead and show that chemical weapons were used, other countries who backed down will support us. We should continue to show the world we are a superpower that can be reckoned with. We won’t be bullied and will support the rights of others to live a peaceful existence in a democratically ruled government of their own.

— David Irvine, Upland

Let the savages overseas fight their own battles

For years, the savages in Syria have been slitting each others’ throats. And when one inspects their rationale for on-going killing it usually can be reduced to a disagreement over which section of the egg they should break for breakfast. Besides, once we aid them, they will turn on us “infidels” as they have in the past.

Leave the savages to their own killing rather than adding our people to theirs. We have enough to contend with on our own shores.

— Phil Soinski, North Hollywood

Important action taking place behind the scenes

The role of the U.S. military is to carry out whatever actions the president directs. Within that context, it’s incumbent upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide the president with a strategy for successful implementation.

Make no mistake, the U. S. military’s leadership has already engaged in numerous behind-the-scenes activities in the region in preparation for the implementation of a response to theSyrian government’s atrocities against its own citizenry.

In spite of religious sensitivities, I would rather see the so-called Arab League leadership take an active lead in the region to resolve the Syrian issue and liberate their Muslim brothers and sisters. They’ve got the financial and material assets to do so and are already actively involved, but for some reason hesitant in making the details of their interventions known.

— Jack McDowell, Long Beach

In Syria’s case, it’s too late for the U.S. to take action

Because of the delay in responding to the chemical warfare used in Syria, we’ve lost the advantage of any military action. The Syrians have already moved their military amongst civilians.

When President Obama placed the “red line,” he should have had a plan for when it was crossed. Everything should have been in place to handle the situation, including identifying the location of the chemical weapons and destroying them immediately. Now there’s no way of knowing where those chemicals are. A quick strike would have sent the message the U.S. means business. Remember, those chemical weapons can just as easily be used here. Better we stop those weapons overseas.

Obama should have spoken to Congress about a plan of action if chemical weapons were used. Then he wouldn’t have had to drag his feet in putting that plan into immediate action.

— Olga Blanthorne, West Covina

Don’t lay down a ‘red line’ before planning response

I don’t understand President Obama’s reasons for going to war with Syria. Where has he been the past three years when Syrian dictator Bashar Assad slaughtered about 120,000 of his people? Now he wants to do something because he gassed more than 1,400 people? Why were the 120,000 slaughtered any less important than the gassed? It was a terrible thing to do, but when you’re dead, you’re dead. To me, he is saying “you can slaughter all the people you want, just don’t gas them or we will come after you.”

Obama put his foot in his mouth with his “red line” remark and now needs Congress to pull it out.

— Sarah Parker, Glendora

U.S. has enough problems at home to solve world’s

Fundamentally, the U.S. military should solely protect American citizens. However, in today’s world, we have been the world’s police, involved in too many interventions. Iran is an example of failed intervention. President Obama’s shouldn’t have set a red line for Syria. If necessary, he should have immediately gone to Congress for backing. We have far too many needs at home to be the world’s police.

— Edward Beauchamp, Lakewood

In new weapons, military is reaping what it sowed

Had our government not sold or “given” military hardware — including planes, tanks, weapons and ammunition — to countries we’ve had trouble with the past 20 years, those countries would be fighting their own wars with sticks and stones. Our military has no role overseas at such a tremendous cost to taxpayers. We have our own borders to protect and need the money for our almost bankrupt government.

We are heading toward conflict in Syria because our technology for developing modern chemical weapons is now in the hands of a tyrant. There will be more opportunities in the future to get involved in something we should have no part of.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.